Is Gravity the Weakest Force? - Not Always!

Many people have suggested that because gravity is the weakest force compared to the other three; the strong nuclear force, the electromagnetic force and the weak nuclear force; it must be unsuitable as an aid to generating electricity through Bessler’s wheel.  But this is not the whole picture. This kind of fact is typical of such erroneous generalisations which permeate this subject.

If, for instance, you could take two protons and hold them very close together, they would exert several forces on each other. Because they both have mass, the two protons exert gravitational attraction on each other. Because they both have a positive electric charge, they both exert electromagnetic repulsion on each other. Also, they both exert attraction via the strong nuclear force. Because the strong nuclear force is the strongest at short distances, it dominates over the other forces and the two protons become bound, forming a helium nucleus (typically a neutron is also needed to keep the helium nucleus stable). Gravity is so weak at the atomic scale that scientists can typically ignore it without incurring significant errors in their calculations.

However, on an astronomical scale, gravity does dominate over the other forces. There are two reasons for this: 1) gravity has a long range, and 2) there is no such thing as negative mass. Each force dies off as the two objects experiencing the force become more separated. The rate at which the forces die off is different for each force. The strong and weak nuclear forces are very short ranged, meaning that outside of the tiny nuclei of atoms, these forces quickly drop to zero.  

The earth and sun are far too distant from each other for their nuclear forces to reach each other. In contrast to the nuclear forces, both the electromagnetic force and gravity have effectively infinite range and die off in strength as 1/r2.

So when we say that gravity is the weakest of the four forces it depends on where and how it is being compared.  We already use gravity in numerous ways via an intermediary such as water, and in the case of Bessler's wheel the intermediary is a system of weights.

If one of Bessler's four pound weights was dropped on your foot, you might not think gravity was a weak force.

 Please share the following link and donate if you wish to aid

                                     my granddaughter's treatment for CRPS and FND
                                                                  www.helpamy.co.uk/

JC

Bessler's Wheel - the Moral Issue.

Occasionally some people on the forum seek opinons about protecting their invention in the event that they succeed in designing and building a working Bessler's wheel.  Usually the focus of such research is on patenting their design.  As some of you may know, after some soul searching as well factual research as I decided against patenting the device.  This was not wholly a moral decision although that formed part of the consideration; no, I could see little of advantage and plenty of disadvantages in following that path.  I won't go into the arguments for and against  patenting again, it’s all here in old posts.

In fact if the main reason for patenting the device is the potential financial reward, I doubt if a patent would provide any significant difference in the amount of money obtainable, in either case, other than the immediacy of such reward.  Patenting is a relatively slow business whereas an announcement of success along with details of the design could generate immediate financial rewards.

Returning to the moral issue, some people have suggested that a patent could not be obtained if the  current inventor had obtained the design via the interpretation of a number of clues; this of course could apply to me, if I succeeded, but it does not seem very likely to me that such a conclusion would be valid.  But it wouldn’t matter if no patent was sought.

Also it has been suggested that a patent taken out on the design would be morally unacceptable because Bessler had the original design and should have profited from it himself, and because he was unable to apply for a patent in those early days, he forfeited what should have been his reward.  It will be over three hundred years too late for Bessler to receive his just recognition, but perhaps he suspected it might take this long before he won due acknowledgement for his ingenious invention.  Better late than never.

I am against patenting anyway because I think the planet earth needs free access to the design without any restrictions due to patenting laws, not that I think that they would stop anyone ignoring the patent restrictions making their own devices.

Despite the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change having set the world a clear target that we must reduce emissions of greenhouse gases to net zero by the middle of this century to have a reasonable chance of limiting global warming to 1.5C., nothing much has happened, hence the many demostrations in support of the IPCC's report.  The chief reason being that no one has come up with the answer to electricity generation by a clean, free energy source.....yet.

When I originally decided against applying for a patent if I was fortunate enough to reconstruct Bessler's wheel, I thought I would be content with a small amount of money.  But circumstances have changed so dramatically for me and my family in the last eighteen months. My granddaughte Amy Pohl's health requires a large sum of money just to keep her at the new facility in Sheffield.  Amy suddenly acquired two awful diseases; Complex Regional Pain Syndrome, which is the most painful affliction a person can get. 24/7 intense pain, super sensitivity to even a soft breeze.  But as well she has Functional Neurological Disorder which causes the loss of use in her legs and digestive system.

You can read about her at    www.helpamy.co.uk/


The unit she is in is a private facilty offering treatment which is not available anywhere else in the UK, and it costs £5000 a week.

Amy is an amazing person with tremendous strength of spirit and she will recover if she can complete the treatment and return to her job teaching young children.  If you wish to donate or share her plight please visit her pages above.
  

JC

Inside Bessler's Wheel?

What follows is pure speculation but hopefully of interest.

When I read about the speed of Bessler's first two wheels turning at more than 50 revolutions per minute, I thought that it should be possible to configure the mechanism so that it caused the wheel to turn at precisely 60 rpm, to measure the passing of one minute.

Since the 17th century, clocks have been regulated by the swinging of a pendulum to obtain accurate timing.  They were notoriously inaccurate at first, but since those early days improvements in the design of clocks has been made over the years to narrow the accuracy down to a fraction of a second per day.

Several witnesses to the demonstrations of Bessler’s wheel’s remarked on the great regularity of their rotation and I thought that this could be indicative of the presence of one or more pendulums.  Given this possibility perhaps we might estimate the approximate length of any such pendulums used within the one-way wheels at least.

The time that it takes a pendulum to swing is governed by just two factors: the mass of the Earth and the length of the pendulum from the fulcrum to the centre of gravity of the weight. Nothing else is of significant importance.  The earth’s mass is a constant so it’s just the length of the pendulum that governs its swing speed.

I’m not suggesting that there were pendulums inside the wheel, but I believe there were weighted levers.  In falling these might behave like a restricted  pendulum.  We know that modern clocks use shortened pendulums for greater accuracy as they swing faster but knowing that a one second pendulum is just under a meter long, or about 39 inches suggests that the levers inside Bessler 's wheel might have been longer to account for the speed of over 50 rpm, but less than 60 rpm.

One Leipzig Ell equalled 22.4 inches, so two Ells would give a length of 44.6 inches which might just give a speed of over 50rpm. The first wheel was six and a half feet in diameter which could perhaps accomodate pendulums of three foot, four inches.
 (First wheel size corrected, see http://www.besslerwheel.com/wwwboard/messages2/3603.html  and if you click on the link you will perhaps notice that I mispelled the so-called original German text for 'three' which should begin with the letter 'd' not 'b'!  I just added this in case someone notices the error and brings it up here.)

So if Bessler simply chose to use levers of two Ells length or 44 inches and then built the wheel around their action, we can understand something about the size of the first wheels and what potential speed and power each might be capable of achieving.  Contrary to intuition, shorter levers might generate faster rotation?  Heavier weights more power?

In addition to the weighted levers, Bessler casually gives us more information about what is inside his wheels. In AP,XXXIII part 2, page 340 in my edition, he comments about Wagner, "If I arrange to have just one cross-bar in the machine, it revolves very slowly, just as if it can hardly turn itself at all, but, on the contrary, when I arrange several bars, pulleys and weights, the machine can revolve much faster,." In my opinion the bars he refes to are weighted levers, and he includes pulleys which implies chains of cords or ropes to run around them.

 Please share the following link and donate if you wish to aid my granddaughter's treatment.

                                                                  www.helpamy.co.uk/

JC

Considerations about Johann Bessler and His Wheel.

The basic requirements for building a successful gravity-enabled wheel can be quite simply described, although obviously not as easily achieved!

The scepticism that we face includes the well-established “fact” that according to the laws of physics we cannot design and build a perpetual motion machine. Well, this is true if you make it completely isolated from any form of energy; an isolated system.  This is not my definition, but it’s what we are taught and yet what kind of fool would even imagine that it might be possible?  No external energy source! But I have never believed in that, nor wanted to do so.  No, it has always been my belief that gravity holds the key; a force of nature which could enable a perpetual motion machine, or a gravity-enabled machine to run continuously.  Which of course means it can’t be a closed system.

Yes I know gravity is not a source of energy!  But to my mind it is!  Ok it’s not a energy source in the accepted sense, but it causes things to fall, and that means there is the potential to harness the energy of the fall.

You cannot get more energy out of a machine than you put into it, and when friction is added there is no spare energy to even complete a single rotation. I only want to use the same energy from the machine that I put into it, not more - but I also want it to do work as well as run itself....so I need to put  more energy into the machine just to complete at least one rotation. If several weights could be designed to fall resulting in one complete rotation, and then repeat the action, we wouldn't have a problem.

How to put extra energy into the machine so that there is enough for it to overbalance and complete a rotation? Find a way to enable gravity to start the rotation and also take more energy from gravity to continue the rotation, by designing a system that resets the weight after each fall, before it gets to the point where it needs to fall again. Continuous rotation will cause it to accelerate up to a certain speed.

But when it's stationary, is it in a state of permanent imbalance?   It depends; if the first bit of rotation requires a fall before it begins to rotate a little, then without the fall no rotation can take place.  But if the wheel had been stopped after the fall had ocurred then the wheel will turn a little.  In my opinion, the fall takes place at the same time that the preceeding weight resets.  So the effect is for the wheel to be permanently out of balance, which is why Bessler applied a brake to keep it stationary.

To add more energy than the wheel needs to complete one rotation, it is not sufficient to increase the number of mechanisms or over-balancing weights, because each one has to be reset in order to fall again at the right place.  There has to be a resetting mechanism.

One more thing here.  Bessler made certain claims that were fully backed up by demonstrations and eye witness's accounts, many of whom were out to prove him a liar.  So why, if we accept his claims and almost everything else, do some people maintain that the wheel could not have been permanently out of balance.  Some have suggested that the wheel was stopped in a certain position so that it would begin to spin as soon as the brake was released.  Bessler stated more than once that the wheel started to spin spontaneously as soon as the brake was released.  This fact was reiterated several times by witnesses. Why accept most of the evidence and reject some of the rest?  Why would Bessler lie about such a thing, so trivial when considered against a backdrop of everything else?

In a few weeks I will know if my wheel works or not, but I do know that I have deciphered  a large amount of clues which I hope will astound and amaze you!

JC

  Please share the following link and donate if you wish to aid my granddaughter's treatment.

                                                                  www.helpamy.co.uk/